| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:44:46 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Why did I knew that this argument would come? Maybe because it's your |
| 5 |
>> default reaction to any opposition. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> What, providing evidence to the contrary? What more do you want? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This is such a hilarious thread; so let me start by half agreeing with |
| 11 |
Ciaran here. The whole point of news items is to only hit affected |
| 12 |
users with news. So in this case it doesn't particularly matter the |
| 13 |
number of news items, if there are a 1000 Paludis related news items, |
| 14 |
only Paludis users are affected, and they can then complain about having |
| 15 |
to read a bunch of items related to Paludis. This I can agree with. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There is a minor point about item size and quantity and forcing users to |
| 18 |
rsync news that isn't relevant to them. The reality is that those news |
| 19 |
items could become relevant in the future; so they must be downloaded |
| 20 |
anyway. I think that keeping news to a minimum is a good thing; but in |
| 21 |
this case I'm not going to argue about one news item. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
However if Paludis does say, a news item every release, I will begin to |
| 24 |
wonder at the number of 'critical compatibility' problems in Paludis, |
| 25 |
since I hold most of the Paludis in high regard and I know they can |
| 26 |
produce software without critical issues. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Fighting over one news item is I think pointless. If there is a trend |
| 29 |
then there is at least data to back it. Otherwise you are arguing over |
| 30 |
specific bits in a file with a few thousands characters in it. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-Alec |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives